BAA & Ors v Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory Administration & Ors

Interim private-law relief should not ordinarily be granted where it would materially constrain the exercise of a public-law power. The court must consider the public-law context and should be slow to require conduct which conflicts with strong public-law, diplomatic or other public-interest considerations.

Applying the unmodified American Cyanamid approach, the court accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried and that damages would be inadequate. The balance of convenience nevertheless decisively opposed injunctions preventing the return of medically evacuated individuals to the British Indian Ocean Territory. The risks included detention in Rwanda, breach of diplomatic assurances, damage to future medical evacuations and serious consequences for other migrants.

Five Sri Lankan nationals of Tamil ethnic origin were accommodated in the British Indian Ocean Territory after arriving there by boat and seeking protection. Following serious incidents of self-harm, they were medically evacuated to Rwanda under arrangements by which the United Kingdom undertook that they would be returned to the Territory when treatment ended.

The claimants brought claims in negligence and false imprisonment against the Commissioner and two Secretaries of State. They sought interim injunctions either preventing their removal from Rwanda or requiring advance notice and supporting information before return. The application concerned jurisdiction, the suitability of private-law relief affecting public powers, the consequences of non-compliance with the Rwanda arrangements and the application of the American Cyanamid test.

1. Jurisdiction. The Crown acts in different capacities in relation to the United Kingdom and its overseas territories. The Commissioner exercises executive and legislative powers as an officer of the Crown in right of the Government of the British Indian Ocean Territory. It was arguable that the Commissioner could be sued personally as the person who authorised the alleged torts, and that the defendants could not show at this stage that the Supreme Court of the Territory was clearly and distinctly more appropriate. The court therefore did not refuse interim relief for want of jurisdiction.
2. Private-law relief and public powers. The proposed injunction would restrain the exercise of a governmental power to return individuals to the Territory. The reasoning in Connor v Surrey County Council showed that private-law duties may, in an appropriate case, require the exercise of a public-law discretion, but only consistently with the public authority's full public-law obligations. The court stated that this reflected a wider principle: strong public-law or public-interest factors pointing in one direction should make the court slow to grant private-law relief requiring the opposite result.
3. Consequences of an injunction. The claimants had no right to remain in Rwanda. An injunction could expose them to immigration detention there, prevent the Commissioner from honouring the United Kingdom's undertaking to Rwanda, jeopardise future medical evacuations from the Territory and damage diplomatic relations.
4. Interim relief. The court applied the unmodified American Cyanamid test. A serious issue to be tried was accepted, despite doubts about whether the claimants were detained and about the scope of any duty of care. Damages would be inadequate, and the absence of an undertaking in damages was not decisive. The claimants' medical welfare was important, but their treating clinicians were best placed to assess discharge, and improved medical and safeguarding arrangements existed in the Territory. The balance of convenience decisively opposed both forms of injunction.
5. The application was dismissed.